Bias Allegations Against Inquiry Officer Require Reasoned Orders and Immediate Stay of Disciplinary Proceedings

The applicant, a Professor of CTVS at AIIMS, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings via a Charge Memo dated 18.01.2023

During the inquiry, the applicant submitted representations on 26.07.2023, 14.12.2023, and 21.01.2024 seeking a change of the Inquiry Officer (IO) on grounds of bias

Despite these requests, the IO continued the proceedings. After a previous Tribunal intervention in O.A. No. 648/2024 directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representations for change of IO, the respondents issued an order dated 14.05.2024 rejecting the claim.

This rejection was challenged in the present O.A. on the grounds that it was passed mechanically without addressing the specific grounds of bias or adhering to statutory OMs

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 was a reasoned and speaking order passed in compliance with principles of natural justice and the Tribunal's previous directions

2. Whether the Inquiry Officer was required to stay proceedings upon the filing of an application alleging bias as per prevailing Government instructions

The court applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing disciplinary procedures

The DoPT OM dated 09.11.1972 (Annexure A-5), which mandates that when a government servant alleges bias against an Inquiry Officer, proceedings must be stayed and the application referred to a reviewing authority

The principle of administrative law established in Mahavir Prasad v. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1302), which requires disciplinary and appellate authorities to pass speaking and reasoned orders

The Tribunal found that the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 was passed in a "mechanical manner" because it failed to address any of the specific grounds raised by the applicant in his three representations regarding the IO's alleged bias

The court noted that even though the order was issued in purported compliance with previous Tribunal directions, the failure to provide reasons rendered it a violation of the principles of natural justice

The Tribunal observed that the Inquiry Officer breached the mandatory provisions of the DoPT OM dated 09.11.1972 by continuing the inquiry while the bias application was pending

The court concluded that the respondents neglected to consider the legal requirement to stay proceedings and provide a logical, reasoned rebuttal to the applicant's claims

The court held that the respondents must consider the applicant’s representations dated 26.07.2023, 14.12.2023, and 21.01.2024 afresh and pass a "reasoned and speaking order"

The Tribunal directed the respondents to refrain from proceeding with the departmental inquiry until the new order is passed and served upon the applicant

No order was made as to costs